Broadcasting Telecasting (Apr - June 1951)

FREEZE LIFT DELAY Urged by Benton Plan By DAVE BERLYN SEN. WILLIAM BENTON (DConn.) last Tuesday followed up a frontal attack on commercial broadcast criteria by formally introducing a joint resolution which would hold in abeyance the FCC's freeze on TV allocations for an added six months to a year. The resolution (S J Res 76) requires approval by both houses of Congress and would have the effect of law. Details of the resolution were revealed by Sen. Benton a fortnight ago during his testimony before a special subcommittee of the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee [Broadcasting • Telecasting, June 4]. Sen. Benton already has sponsored a bill (S 1579) which would create a National Advisory Board for Radio and Television to act jas a non-commercial watchdog :pover commercial broadcasting. As Sen. Benton expressed it, the net effect would be to produce an "annual Blue Book." The same co-sponsors in the Senate of the Benton Bill also supported the resolution. They are Sens. Lester C. Hunt (D-Wyo.), John Bricker (R-Ohio) and Leverett Saltonstall (R-Mass.). In the House, an identical bill to e -et up an advisory board on radio cm and television and spelling out the .:T composition, responsibilities and inutt [procedure of the proposed board i-was introduced last Thursday by Rep. Hugh J. Addonizio (D-N. Y.). i :i Dm. Arm] . ::.'A ite or i ■n alpro sited 0' i toil So* % Rep. Addonizio told BROADCASTING • Telecasting he entered his bill (HR 4366) because "of the fact that there is no allocation for educational channels in New Jersey." Under the FCC's revised TV allocation proposal there is no educational reservation for the state. Referred to Commerce Group The bill was referred to the House Interstate Commerce Comitejraittee. In addition to imposing an extension of FCC's freeze, Sen. Benton's "resolution also would call upon FCC to grant TV station licenses 3n a yearly basis thus amending ihe Communications Act which ;i i-pells out a maximum three-tofive years for a broadcast station icense grant, prod FCC into exploration of subscription broadasting and encourage its development, and create the citizens advisory board. The new bill and resolution, which supersede Sen. Benton's original esolution (S Res 127) sponsored ast April [Broadcasting • Telecasting, April 16], were submitted ^ujifter Sen. Benton studied and revised S Res 127. It was his original resolution ipon which the special subcommit'"..Wr.ee, under chairmanship of Senate Majority Leader Ernest W. Mctrarland (D-Ariz.), held its heary]i|n& with Sen. Benton the only and hief witness. However, it has been explained that the submission of new legislation alters the situation in this respect: The special subcommittee must now, as Sen. McFarland has indicated, decide whether it will probe the matter further and hold hearings. There is a possibility that Sen. Benton's proposals will come up at the regular executive session of the full Commerce committee this Wednesday. There is a marked difference between the new Benton resolution and the old. In layman's language it is this: The original legislation would have required the Senate Interstate & Foreign Commerce Committee to investigate the entire allocations question in light of educators' demands during which a 60-day moi-atorium would be placed on the freeze. The new proposals would ban further FCC action on lifting the freeze for six months to a year and in addition, set up a citizens advisory board to function as a Congressional-established but privately-staffed medicine man to the Commission. Broadcasters are taking careful notice of the new Benton Plan because of its implications on programming. Many are fearful that the so-called "Blue Book" — or guide to programming — would be perpetuated and subject to constant surveillance and whim of a semi-governmental body. Meanwhile, Sen. Benton's office has reported continuous correspondence from educational institutions in response to some 300 letters circulated by Sen. Benton's office. The mail is running 5 to 1 in support of the Senator's proposals, according to his office. Sections in the letters ask for comment on the advisability of Congress pursuing the grant of federal funds for radio-TV purposes. However, it was acknowledged that some "unsolicited" individuals have written the Senator in apprehension that perhaps a supercensorship board would be created. Sen. Benton, however, disclaims this as his purpose, pointing out that the citizens advisory board's recommendations would not be TRANSIT RADIO Court Appeal Planned By JOHN OSBON A FULL-DRESS review by the nation's highest tribunal of commercial transitcasting — and perhaps other specialized FM services — loomed last week. An inquiry by the U. S. Supreme Court — probably this fall or early in 1952 — appeared inevitable in the wake of the U. S. Court of Appeals ruling that transit FM broadcasts violate the constitutional rights of riders under the First and Fifth Amendments [Broadcasting • Telecasting, June 4; also see partial text of ruling, page 60]. While the decision did not touch specifically on other specialized services — Storecasting and other functional music Services — and bypassed an opinion on musical segments of broadcasts within the District of Columbia, authorities were quick to predict far-reaching implications. Highlights stemming from the opinion, which reversed a U. S. District Court finding a year ago, were these: $ Washington Transit Radio Inc., through Ben Strouse, vice president and general manager of WWDC-FM Washington, served notice it would petition for re-hearing or appeal to the Supreme Court. % Richard Crisler, president, Transit Radio Inc., told Broadcasting • Telecasting that his firm does not feel that current advertisers will abandon transit advertising contracts but that it will scrap plans for expanding to other markets for the present. % NARTB's Radio Board adopted a resolution supporting FM specialized services and au thorizing the president and general counsel to take part in court, FCC and other proceedings. $ Justin Miller, NARTB board chairman, scored the court action as a step toward "state control of thought" (see story page 27). Mr. Strouse, president of Washington TR operations, declared that the decision is "an implied challenge to all industry supported by commercial advertising." Attorneys also conceded that the issue is loaded with repercussions which call for high court action. The appellate court, in announcing the decision, ordered the U. S. District Court to "vacate" a 1949 ruling by the Public Utilities Commission for the District of Columbia and remand the case "for further proceedings iir conformity with this opinion." The court acted on an appeal by Transit Riders Assn., comprising some 50 members, which had carried the case to the district court. Authorities felt, however, that From Washington Evening Star Stop the Music! uBROADCASTING • Telecasting the PUC probably would defer action until SCOTUS makes its ruling in lieu of probable "stay" action sought by Washington Transit Radio Inc. and Capital Transit Co. It also was indicated that the FCC, which has made a study of transit FM operation, would await appeal developments before releasing it. The court's opinion, signed by Judge Henry W. Edgerton and concurred in by Judges David Bazelon and Charles Fahy, thus relegated the case to PUC, which in 1949 dismissed complaints against transit FM on the ground that it is not inconsistent with "public convenience, comfort and safety." Chief Points Chief points underscored by the Court of Appeals were these: £ The service stemmed from Congress which gave Capital Transit Co. "not only a franchise but a virtual monopoly" of mass transportation, and from governmental action of PUC. 9 In the District of Columbia "most people" have to use Capital Transit and hear the broadcasts. 0 "No occasion had arisen until now to give effect to freedom from 'forced listening' as a constitutional right," and exploitation of this audience "is a new phenomenon" posing issues not previously "implied." # The profit of Capital Transit Co. and Transit Radio and approval of the service by one passenger group "cannot justify depriving another group of passengers of their liberty." 9 "Impartial" surveys showing (Continued on page 97) June 11, 1951 • Page 25 compulsory for the FCC or Congress to follow. While feeling on Capitol Hill has not yet crystallized on Sen. Benton's far-reaching legislation, observers say that the Senator has drawn his battle lines with the strategy of an old campaigner. Specifically, they point to (1) the continuing appeals to the public and to educational institutions and (2) the manner in which Sen. Benton has been marshalling support for his measure in the upper chamber. It is noted, for example, that Sen. Benton has drawn from various political shades in both parties for support of his proposals. Sen. Bricker is of the GOP conservative bloc with Sen. Hunt approximating that position in the Democratic party although he is more of a middle-roader. Sen. Benton, himself, is of the so-called liberal wing of the Democratic Party, while Sen. Saltonstall fills that designation in the Republican ranks. Still to come are comments from both FCC and U. S. Office of Education, who have been asked for their opinions on the original Benton resolution by the Senate Commerce committee staff.